Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Six Blind Socionicists

  1. #1
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default Six Blind Socionicists

    It was six men of Indostan
    To learning much inclined,
    Who went to type the Elephant
    (Though all of them were blind),
    That each by observation
    Might satisfy his mind

    The First approached the Elephant,
    And happening to fall
    Against his broad and sturdy side,
    At once began to bawl:
    "God bless me! but the Elephant
    Is very like a wall!"

    The Second, feeling of the tusk,
    Cried, "Ho! what have we here
    So very round and smooth and sharp?
    To me 'tis mighty clear
    This wonder of an Elephant
    Is very like a spear!"

    The Third approached the animal,
    And happening to take
    The squirming trunk within his hands,
    Thus boldly up and spake:
    "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
    Is very like a snake!"

    The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
    And felt about the knee.
    "What most this wondrous beast is like
    Is mighty plain," quoth he;
    " 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
    Is very like a tree!"

    The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
    Said: "E'en the blindest man
    Can tell what this resembles most;
    Deny the fact who can
    This marvel of an Elephant
    Is very like a fan!"

    The Sixth no sooner had begun
    About the beast to grope,
    Than, seizing on the swinging tail
    That fell within his scope,
    "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
    Is very like a rope!"

    And so these men of Indostan
    Disputed loud and long,
    Each in his own opinion
    Exceeding stiff and strong,
    Though each was partly in the right,
    And all were in the wrong!

    Moral:

    So oft in socionic wars,
    The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean,
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    No monkeys but the elephant is there. That's really great.

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    wow, I'm fucking impressed.

    Great poet and I like the message it contains.

  4. #4
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    wow, I'm fucking impressed.

    Great poet and I like the message it contains.
    This is a really good an excellent metaphor- however the poem is John Godfrey Saxe's - with socionics replacing theology.

    http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/..._elephant.html
    IEE-Ne

  5. #5
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpsey View Post
    So oft in socionic wars,
    The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean,
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!
    You forgot to mention that critical thinking does not exist.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  6. #6
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thou est wail onward in utter ignorance, fiends.. Thou ist a non punctual concubine. Thou ist thy mothers pampered son. Thou elephant tusk spear the in thy guts. The great monkey comes from above to rain down bananas onto the peasants living in the doll house. The great monkey craps rain into their open mouths. Peasants.. Fools... The six holy monkeys worship the flame of power. Great monkey flame...

  7. #7
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LMAO!
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  8. #8
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I fucking love that picture dude
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  9. #9
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    I love that parable and how it's brought to life in every thread where attempts are made to type others, especially celebrities and other remote personages who don't provide feedback on the selective perceptions and psycho-social biases paraded by everyone who offers an opinion. And yes, I'm susceptible to this same type of error, though it's something I try to monitor, factor for, and guard against.

    Somavision: Correct, though the story is much older than homeboy's rendition of it.

    Bolt: Incorrect on both counts. I'm quite aware that critical thinking exists. Furthermore, since it's performed by humans its application and execution are inherently limited and imperfect. Since you're given to sensationalism it's only natural to wonder whether your obviously false response was intentionally ironic or whether you dismissed intellectual rigor in earnest and thereby stepped unwittingly into your own shit.

  10. #10
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpsey View Post
    Bolt: Incorrect on both counts. I'm quite aware that critical thinking exists. Furthermore, since it's performed by humans its application and execution are inherently limited and imperfect. Since you're given to sensationalism it's only natural to wonder whether your obviously false response was intentionally ironic or whether you dismissed intellectual rigor in earnest and thereby stepped unwittingly into your own shit.
    2+2=4 is performed by humans, but it doesn't mean it's "limited and imperfect". If an idiot comes and claims that it makes five, the conclusion is not that everyone is stupid, but only the idiot. The process can be repeated over 10k idiots with no problem.

    I don't necessarily disagree with the facts mocked in the OP, that it's a total mess, but I disagree with the parable and it's conclusion about the causes of it, something like: "we're all humans and prone to error, that means no one understands but we can all claim we're smart posting nonsense". By the same allusion we can conclude that Jung and Aushra were two dumb blind men, too, evicting your reason to post on this forum.

    My advice to you is to use this rule of thumb: once you make a hasty generalization, pretend that there are 99% chances that you're mistaken (which is likely true). This will make you seriously investigate the validity of your claim before telling it. Use a reminder or something.

    OP is bullshit.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  11. #11
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    The only generalizations I made are that imperfect observers make imperfect observations, and that disposition and habit can easily mislead the apperceptual process accordingly.

    Also, numbers are conceptual signifiers and so they can be made to carry any value that one imparts to them. That your conception of 2+2=4 jibes with its canonical interpretation merely means you've conformed with consensus views regarding a socio-linguistic construct. Without that semiotic investment and your assent in accepting it, it's just a meaningless squiggle.


  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the blind men are self-rightous - that's the point.

  13. #13
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    There's a plurality of valid viewpoints, but that's one of them. Bonus credit for finding the ethical angle in what was originally intended as a jab at the psychological mechanics of fallibility.

  14. #14
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpsey View Post
    Also, numbers are conceptual signifiers and so they can be made to carry any value that one imparts to them. That your conception of 2+2=4 jibes with its canonical interpretation merely means you've conformed with consensus views regarding a socio-linguistic construct. Without that semiotic investment and your assent in accepting it, it's just a meaningless squiggle.
    That's the problem with this sixpenny philosophy: generalization and talk in theory, with no concern of whether it applies to something or not. Yes, in theory we probably don't even exist, so? What's the point? What has this to do with Socionics? No one even claimed that he/she has godlike certainty in what he says, we're just people discussing in our ignorant world; but in it, there exists certainty and logical correctness, prophet. It's just *you* who make the baseless assumption that people their conclusions to be valid in all possible and impossible multiverses.

    And yes, I still insist that you generalize because that's what you do. You tell me that "numbers are conceptual signifiers" without even providing an example of what do you actually acknowledge as a true concept, that is not a human construct, so that we talk about actually *something*.
    Who's the one who can actually see the real elephant, you? In all cultures that use maths 2+2 is still 4, why? Did they speak to each other in advance? It's a fact, not just relativistic mental masturbation. Contingent truth indeed, but truth.
    ---

    Thanks for the picture, actually allows me clarifying my point: that is a pipe. Contradicting me, you take, without justification, the right to claim that, when I say that, I don't mean "the representation of a pipe" - which is implicit for anyone who doesn't look for quirks - but a real one.
    Living our life in illusion or not, I can guess how all this translates into real life: real-life scientists, researchers and thinkers pack your gibberish and dump it to trash. Also in real life, this forum is a joke as long as this bullshit is considered "Socionics discussion". I had no super-epiphany like yours, it's just my quick guess, which you'll probably relate to on Monday morning.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  15. #15
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    That's the problem with this sixpenny philosophy: generalization and talk in theory, with no concern of whether it applies to something or not. Yes, in theory we probably don't even exist, so?
    Ah, but these melodramatic, facetious absolutes are your arguments, not mine.

    What's the point?
    Finite beings with finite sensory and cognitive apparatus necessarily make errors of judgement. Do they reach correct conclusions? Of course, quite often, but this can still be improved.

    What has this to do with Socionics?
    Sloppy thinking leads to false conclusions. Enhancing mindfulness of distorted thinking improves objective evaluation. Better socionics results from better thinking.

    No one even claimed that he/she has godlike certainty in what he says, we're just people discussing in our ignorant world; but in it, there exists certainty and logical correctness, prophet.
    Certainty is phenomenological, a feeling often wholly divorced from objective fact. Case in point: you emphatically declare I made or implied a statement that in fact was neither made nor intended. Also, logically coherent arguments can still be materially false.

    It's just *you* who make the baseless assumption that people their conclusions to be valid in all possible and impossible multiverses.
    Another self-serving falsehood. My interest is valid theory backed by evidence-based justification, not iron-clad proof or popular assent.

    And yes, I still insist that you generalize because that's what you do. You tell me that "numbers are conceptual signifiers" without even providing an example of what do you actually acknowledge as a true concept, that is not a human construct, so that we talk about actually *something*.
    I agree that in most circumstances the sum of 2 and 2 is interpreted as 4. Other interpretations exist outside the domain of mathematics and are no more or less wrong. Numbers are universals and since they aren't found wandering round in nature they have no verifiable attributes.

    Who's the one who can actually see the real elephant, you?
    Further evidence you're neglecting to read what you're attempting to refute.

    In all cultures that use maths 2+2 is still 4, why? Did they speak to each other in advance? It's a fact, not just relativistic mental masturbation. Contingent truth indeed, but truth.
    That "fact" of 2+2=4 is a foundational quantitative convention with demonstrable utility within mathematics and related anthropogenic fields of inquiry, yet still entirely conceptual and representational, i.e. semiotic.

    Thanks for the picture, actually allows me clarifying my point: that is a pipe.
    Simply because the object in the painting appears to be a pipe doesn't necessitate it being one. And in any event, a picture is not a pipe.

    Living our life in illusion or not,
    Partial illusion, partial truth. The goal behind my post was to foster the reduction of the former and enhance the preponderance of the latter.

    I can guess how all this translates into real life: real-life scientists, researchers and thinkers pack your gibberish and dump it to trash.
    And yet these are the same people who value the objective thinking that I promote.

    Also in real life, this forum is a joke as long as this bullshit is considered "Socionics discussion".
    That'll remain the case so long as neurology remains excluded from this rationalist, functionalist, instrumentalist, ipse dixit echo chamber of hermetic horseshit. If there's science to be had I'd love to see it.

    I had no super-epiphany like yours, it's just my quick guess, which you'll probably relate to on Monday morning.
    Wrong from front to back. I admire your thoroughness!

  16. #16
    Brentano's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, Merionethshire, Wales
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Needs more Leibniz.

  17. #17
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ehhhh, so let me get something straight...

    you're making an argument that people's perceptions are wrong because they can't fathom the whole truth of what something is and are doomed to misinterpret and misunderstand...

    but ironically your argument's premise, your perception that everyone is wrong, implies the infallibility of that perception to begin with...

    ??? so nothing here really makes any sense, not even philosophically.

    so why are you doing this thread again?

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpsey View Post
    Also, numbers are conceptual signifiers and so they can be made to carry any value that one imparts to them. That your conception of 2+2=4 jibes with its canonical interpretation merely means you've conformed with consensus views regarding a socio-linguistic construct. Without that semiotic investment and your assent in accepting it, it's just a meaningless squiggle.
    My thoughts exactly.

    Objectively, + = , but one could claim the first and second set of being 3 each and the result 8. The concept is quantifiable, the descriptors (symbols, as numbers are symbols) are not.

  19. #19
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not like the whole process of thinking is meaningless because it's going to be incomplete. You can still roughly distill reality by checking things out from multiple angles. Eventually you get to something which is fairly accurate. But the process of thinking is neverending. You'll always be tweaking and revising your opinions on things. That's no reason to throw away your thoughts or dismiss other peoples thoughts. I dont think that's really a spectacular realization, either. It's actually pretty simple. This thread is just over the top intellectual narcissism. I have to ask myself what you're compensating for when you try so hard to come across as intellectual.

  20. #20
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I actually agree with the moral of the original poem, which contained one more stave:

    The Seventh blind man stepped in,
    Touching its head h'exclaims in joy:
    "Haha! You're blind but also stupid pals,
    Cow's tail is not a rope to climb;
    This is ey focking animal
    With horns at mouth and nose like trunk!"
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  21. #21
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like how Effie failed to parry my final thrust and fabricated a bit of whimsy at the end to save his fragile dignity, trying to fool other blind twits by proclaiming "I understood it all along!"

    Logic without evidence is a fart in a jar. Evidence without logic is a pile of shit.

  22. #22
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A fart in a jar can be useful.

  23. #23
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    A fart in a jar can be useful.
    For puerile and offensive pranking, sure. Not a whole hell of a lot of use for it outside of that.
    4w5 sp/sx

    Please, direct all questioning of my self-typing to this thread. Thank you.

  24. #24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •